I don’t know what the answer is here. Anyone else?
predicting civil war, including one that stated, with staggering historical ignorance: “Civil war is coming. There has never been a country that has remained peaceful with a sizeable Islamic presence.”
It’s easy enough to detail places that didn’t cope well – Partition of the Raj say. And limit the conversation to places that had a growing then sizeable such presence – no point in pointing out that Saudi’s been stable for 1400 years (-ish).
So, a history test – which places have had an Ismlamic minority growing into a sizeable presence and not had civil unrest because of it?
Facts are so outdated. Actually, they’re heretical. All that counts in the new religion is that you repeat the priestly incantations.
Arabia was run by the Mamelukes from 1200 something and then the Ottomans from 1500ish. The Saudi regime only existed from 1750, under the suzerainty of the Turks.
The interior of Araby was occupied by Bedouin tribes who happily ran around slaughtering each other.
In most cases, west of the Himalayas, Muslim rule involved massive military presence and then subjugation by taxation.
The fall of such empires was usually due to decadence.
“Overwhelmingly, but not exclusively, the groups they targeted were Muslims, and asylum seekers and other immigrants. Others were demonised less often, though no less harmfully: for example, Priti Patel, now a leading contender for the party leadership, targeted Travellers, and pushed legislation through parliament that could destroy their travelling lives, as well as those of Gypsies and Roma.”
He’s got a point, though. For the life of me I can’t work out why these particular groups have been demonised.
Spain remained peaceful after the Reconquista. But they developed the Inquisition to make sure this happened. And threw out all those who didn’t profess Christianity.
I note Monbiot claims ‘Black people have faced institutional police racism and selective stop, search and arrest for decades.’ But he makes a point of giving their name a capital B.
It’s a mystery Simon. My local town was recently blessed by an unexpected visit. It took less than a day to clear their rubbish away and I’m sure the grass will grow back now their impromptu car rallying on the greensward has ended.
Fight, fight, fight senior Tories urged for years
Does he actually present any evidence senior Tories used those words?
It’s notable that the word “fight” is ubiquitous in the left’s dialogues about almost anything. Even infant playgroups must be “fought for”. Although it not always clear whether it’s the Mums or the toddlers themselves should be putting the boot in. At the moment it’s the riots that must be “fought”, which is hardly pacifying talk. It’s not a word that Monbiot himself is estranged from. Although the idea of the world’s leading wuss actually doing any himself stretches the imagination.
But imposition of socialism by violence is the standard method, isn’t it? Socialism & violence always go hand in hand. They can’t leave the subject alone.
My guess is that you’d have to do several days hard research to come up with significant numbers of senior Tories using the word. It’s not particularly in their vocabulary.
Slightly off topic. Anyone seen anything on the number of rubber boats crossing the Channel in the past few days? Topic seems to have dropped out the news. My suspicion is that the volume of seekers of British hospitality might have abruptly declined.
Which raises an interesting point. Bearing in mind the cost of supporting these people when they get to the UK. The saving could even defray the entire cost of the rioting. It’s not as if they haven’t been known to trash their own accommodation. Now the question is, will the rioting be sufficiently threatening to encourage those already in the UK to depart for somewhere safer? (For the entrepreneurial amongst us, should we get ourselves down to south coast beaches with stocks of rubber dingies?)
In other words, have the British public stumbled on the solution that’s defeated its politicians over the past couple of decades.
Rather than developing a coherent policy, it chose to keep redefining extremism, to exclude the bigoted elements in its own base and focus instead on environmental protesters and peaceful campaigners contesting the unfolding genocide in Gaza.
Those peaceful anti-semites and the environmentalists who attacked people for eating meat are just not in any way threatening, are they?
Repeated statements by Conservative MPs – sometimes subtle, sometimes crude – could scarcely have been better designed to inflame racist mobs. When Suella Braverman, the former home secretary, falsely claimed that Britain was “sleepwalking into a ghettoised society”, and that “Islamists … are in charge now”, she was allowed by Rishi Sunak to stay on the party benches.
Whereas people decrying ‘Islamophobia’ and describing Islam as a ‘Religion of Peace’ amidst 20 plus people young people dead/ maimed for having the temerity to attend an Ariana Grande concert were not provoking any reaction at all.
Asylum seekers and other immigrants were the perfect foil. Not only could they be blamed for crises caused entirely by government policy – the failure of housing provision, an overwhelmed NHS, crumbling schools and all the other erosions of the public realm – but they could also be performatively beaten up. Attacking the weakest and most vulnerable people on Earth – those who have been forced to flee their homes – delivers no improvement in the lives of people who already live here
Those Albanians over here currently building Mansions on the coast were ‘forced to flee’ – remittances continue to account for hundreds of millions per week and provide a substantial amount of GDP for a number of countries.
Of course, they were amply assisted by the media: not just the Mail and the Telegraph, but also, shamefully, the BBC. We should never forget the extent to which the BBC changed this country by giving endless airtime to Nigel Farage and other rightwing extremists, while shutting out progressive voices.
Yes – when I watch the BBC I feel I am living in a rerun of Germany in the 1930s for sure.
Musk’s platform is also being used to spread the myth of “two-tier policing”: the claim that far-right protesters are selectively arrested, while Black protesters can do as they please. It’s the opposite of the truth: Black people have faced institutional police racism and selective stop, search and arrest for decades
Not any more – as anyone who observed police reaction to the BLM riots can testify. Indeed it’s well know that in any altercation between a Black and a white person the police will always side with the black person – unfailingly. That’s true across all police forces – anyone favouring a white person over a black person in a way which could imply ‘racism’ or ‘unconscious bias’ would be looking at disciplinary action for certain. That anti-white racism exists and is prominent in all public and private sector industries.
Yes, the immediate authors of this mayhem are the racist thugs rampaging through our cities, and they should face the legal consequences. But let us not forget who helped to whip them up.
I agree – let us not forget those who caused this – paragons of genuine evil like Murphy and Monbiot whose hatred for this country is so extreme they look to radically transform it through unelected terrorist groups causing mayhem under spurious ‘environmentalist’ philosophies that are entrenched in law with no democratic debate. Whose loathing for the indigenous populace is so great they actively look to replace them with people of a profoundly alien, deeply loathsome religion which is inherently intolerant. Who have taken advantage of being indulged in their radicalism to create a false narrative of themselves as victims and who ideally need to face imprisonment for lengthy periods on the grounds of treason.
@BiS – fingers crossed. This could be a winner. We might also offset the fact that the rioters haven’t stabbed or raped anyone.
Re: Muslim nations that aren’t violent shitholes, The UAE is developed and pretty civilised, if not my cuppa. Of course the non-native population has to tread carefully (I mean expats, not the SE Asian serfs, for whom life isn’t so good). Malaysia is OK, Indonesia has been historically tolerant of religious minorities but they seem to have had more trouble recently, although not from government. People tell me Oman is nice….
Everywhere else, utter dumps. Look at the trouble caused in India and Nigeria by their large Muslim populations. Or by the smaller Muslim populations in Western Europe.
Singapore has nearly a million Muslims, or 15% of the population but seems to have totally avoided trouble. Mind you, if more than a couple of dozen people gathered outside a Mosque, even for a chat about the football, they’d be in bother….
The way it seems to me is that Muslims will always sense weakness, like sharks sniffing blood.
In modern Britain they’ve perceived that government is weak and hamstrung by political correctness, so they challenge authority wherever they can in an attempt to gain the whip hand. In places like London, Birmingham, Blackburn, Oldham you might say they’ve achieved this.
In Singapore, although they’re a higher proportion of the population, they can see that the government won’t put up with their shit, so they know better.
That’s the sad reality. Any country with a Muslim minority will need to rule them with an iron fist, otherwise they’ll end up in power.
Saudi, stable for 1400 years? You need a better history book.
This is just one, relatively, modern instance….
https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Al-Diriyyah
And limit the conversation to places that had a growing then sizeable such presence – no point in pointing out that Saudi’s been stable for 1400 years (-ish).
Oh no, Timmy… Just no.
The key to understanding anything going on in the Middle East and Africa (past, present, future) is not religion, but power of the clan/tribe/village in those societies. Because Westerners don’t understand the dynamic, they tend to ascribe to religion (and other factors) events that are better explained by that dynamic.
“Malaysia is OK”: helped, presumably, by the British and Aussies defeating the Communist/Chinese attempt to conquer the country.
“Indonesia has been historically tolerant of religious minorities”: unless you count communism as a religion – they murdered about a million Chinese/Communists in 1965/6.
Talking about Indonesia. This article from the Torygraph.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/climate-and-people/the-dark-side-of-indonesias-nickel-mining-boom/
Pictured: Indonesia’s net zero nickel boom fuels destruction of rainforests and coral reefs
If you actually look at the photographs, it’s just a few square kilometres of industry in a very large & so far relatively underdeveloped nation & some holes in the ground. Sure, industry is inclined to get a bit messy. It’s the nature of industry.
It’s the usual environmentalist’s dilemma. They want to “save the planet”. But they can’t come to terms with the reality; to obtain the materials needed to save the planet you’re probably going to need to sacrifice a small part of it. They want the renewable energy cycle. But they don’t want what is needed to achieve it. I blame it all on the extinction of the unicorn. Result of not having enough virgins around.
All mass migrations cause strife, regardless of religion.
Palestinians fuck up everywhere they go, even when they share the same religion.
USA is no stranger to race riots, e.g. between Irish and Italians.
The natives came off second best against the Portuguese, Spanish, English in the New World.
The only exception is when conquest is rapid and total: 1066, 45AD…
Remember in 2020, when the entirety of the media decided to encourage an outpouring of racial hatred against white people?
White people remember.
Bboy – Spain remained peaceful after the Reconquista. But they developed the Inquisition to make sure this happened. And threw out all those who didn’t profess Christianity.
The great thing about the Inquisition is that nobody expects it.
“Indonesia has been historically tolerant of religious minorities”
Christians still have a hard time in “historically tolerant” Indonesia. The only non-Muslim group not to have too much of a problem are the Hindus in Bali, probably because they are in the majority, but even so it can get a bit tense at times.
Well BiS, when I read about the nickel mines and plants in Indonesia, I can understand why the Chinese decided to invest there rather than in Oz. Even though our nickel ores are of a higher quality.
I know I tend to bang on about the population density of central England (>700/km²) being much too high, but Java has >1,200/km² and that’s on an island heavily pocked by giant, very active volcanoes*. I’m almost surprised they have room for any nickel mines! Though Indonesia also comprises islands such as Sumatra and most of Borneo, which are relatively empty, providing plenty of lebensraum if they need it.
* TBF those volcanoes are also responsible for the very fertile soil (and the nickel??), which allows them to grow enough rice to feed 150 million people
– which places have had an Ismlamic minority growing into a sizeable presence and not had civil unrest because of it?
You’re begging the question; maybe places had civil unrest because of something else (poverty, hunger, oppression, etc). But that doesn’t matter because the whole “civil war” angle is a misdirection. Civil war is the people within a nation falling into conflict because their disagreements overwhelm their political systems.
Britain doesn’t face civil war, it is in the middle of a foreign invasion.
The invading enemy is the ummat al-Islām.
Now it might be true that Britain needs a civil war in order to settle how we react to the invasion (surrender or fight) but the nature of the enemy should not be misunderstood.
“Indonesia has been historically tolerant of religious minorities”
The most recent episode of Indonesian race riots around the 1999 timeframe brought my wife to the US. The riots were against religious and ethnic minorities. Stores and home were looted and burned, along with rape and murder of the minorities. The government has actively discriminated against those minorities by banning them from the military and government jobs.
@Boganboy
Black people have faced institutional police racism and selective stop, search and arrest for decades
It’s true that black people were more likely to be stopped and searched. It’s also true that black people are disproportionately more likely to be involved in knife crime both as the aggressor and the victim. Being a likely victim of knife crime breeds fear and knives are thus carried for self defence, making it a vicious circle. Due to the “racism“ defence, stop and search has been applied less and less in recent years. Knife crime has risen at a similar rate. Correlation is not causation, but a working hypothesis is that the decline in stop and search targeting black people has led to an increase in black people being victims of knife crime.